T353
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
| |
|
| |
|
Industrial Relations Act 1984
| |
| T. No. 353 of 1986 | IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION (TASMANIA BRANCH) TO VARY THE AGRICULTURISTS AWARD |
| RE: INSERTION OF A RATE FOR PERSONS SHEARING GOATS | |
| COMMISSIONER R. J. WATLING | 27 June, 1986 |
|
REASONS FOR DECISION | |
| APPEARANCES: | |
| For the Australian Workers' Union | - Mr. D. P. Hanlon |
| - Mr. R. J. McLachlan Mr. D. Brown (Inspections 12.3.1986) | |
|
- Mr. D. Brown | |
| For the Tasmanian Farmers' and Graziers' Employers' Association |
- Miss C. Pascoe |
|
Mr. L. Kelly | |
|
Mr. P.X. Houlihan | |
| For `Mount Morriston Estates' |
- Mr. C.M. Stephen |
| For `Verwood' | - Mr. F. Dowling |
| DATES AND PLACES OF HEARING: | |
| 12.3.1986 1.4.1984 28.4.1986 2.6.1986 3.6.1986 19.6.1986 |
Inspections `Mount Morriston' Inspections `Verwood' Hobart Hobart Hobart Hobart |
This application, made by the Australian Workers' Union (Tasmania Branch) was for the purpose of amending Part I of the Agriculturists Award to include a new subclause 4 in Division I to provide for the payment of piece-work rates for employees shearing goats.
The claim was as follows: -
"4. Persons shearing goats in and about shearing sheds shall be paid $250.00 per hundred."
The hearing commenced with inspections at the property of Mr. C.M. Stephen called `Mount Morriston' at Ross, where we observed a small group of shearers shearing goats, and on another occasion we observed the same group of shearers shearing sheep at the property of Mr. F. Dowling called `Verwood' at Ross.
No evidence was taken on the job.
The parties agreed to a request made by Mr. Houlihan, representing the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Employers' Association (T.F. & G.E.A.), that the first sitting day be put aside for the purpose of arguing the question of jurisdiction as it seemed to the T.F. & G.E.A. there may have been some doubt as to whether or not I had jurisdiction to hear and/or make an award in this matter.
The hearing commenced on 28 April 1986, and Mr. Hanlon, representing the Australian Workers' Union (Tasmanian Branch) (A.W.U.) very briefly outlined his claim, thus enabling Mr. Houlihan to argue, as agreed, the threshold question of jurisdiction.
However, Mr. Houlihan proceeded with a submission suggesting that whilst he was not contesting that I had jurisdiction to make an award, nevertheless he believed it to be inappropriate at this time for the Commission to make an award to regulate the shearing of goats, as the industry was very much in its infancy.
He went on to suggest that I should determine that it was not in the public interest to proceed any further with the matter.
I declined Mr. Houlihan's invitation as I was not prepared to reject the application, especially when I had only heard a very brief outline of the claim.
I indicated to Mr. Houlihan that he would be given ample opportunity to argue the merits of this application, including the public interest, at the next day of sitting.
The hearing was then adjourned until 2 June, 1986.
When the hearing resumed, Mr. Hanlon opened his submission by amending the claim and requested the withdrawal of the original claim, replacing it with a new classification 4 in Part I, Division I, to read as follows:
"4. A person shearing goats in or about shearing sheds shall be paid at one and a half times the flock sheep rate and twice the flock sheep rate for billy and wethers over 2 years."
The amount paid per one hundred for `flock sheep' which was alluded to in Mr. Hanlon's claim is the rate prescribed in the Pastoral Industry Award, being an award of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
The current rates are set out, in part, below: -
(a) the minimum rates for shearing shall be: -
If "not found" -
(i) For flock sheep (wethers, ewes and lambs), by machine - $106.89 per 100
(ii) For rams (other than special stud rams) and ram stags - double the rate for flock sheep - $213.78 per 100
(iii) For stud ewes and their lambs - one and a quarter times the rate for flock sheep - $133.61 per 100
Mr. Hanlon explained the purpose of amending the claim was to maintain the existing practice in the industry whereby there was a rate set per sheep for flock sheep, rams and stud sheep and this practice should apply to the shearing of goats.
The main points drawn from Mr. Hanlon's submission can be summarised as follows: -
-
The claim does not seek to introduce any new practice or methods and it is capable of being interpreted by any person operating on a farm where sheep and goats are run.
-
The basis of the application is that it is currently not allowable for a person to be paid piece-work rates where there is not a piece-work rate set within the award.
-
There is no piece-work rate set for shearing of goats, either in the Pastoral Industry Award, or the State Agriculturists Award.
The award covers the shearing of goats during the course of weekly employment, however, it does not cover persons employed on piece-work rates as there are no rates set in the award.
-
Section 50 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1984 sets out the requirements for piece-work.
-
The industry practice is to have goats shorn at piece-work rates.
-
The application by the Union seeks to include a provision for piece-work rates for shearing goats in the Agriculturists Award and adopts the same formula as now set out in the Pastoral Industry Award for shearing of sheep.
All that the Union is required to show is that there is work carried out in the State for which the award contains no relevant provision, and more particularly that there are employees doing the work.
-
A shearer, irrespective of shearing goats or sheep, working consistently, working as part of an incentive scheme, working in fair and average conditions, should earn no less per day for shearing goats than they would earn for shearing sheep.
-
The capacity for shearing sheep means that more can be earned per day at present than shearing goats.
-
The average number of sheep shorn per day is accepted as 150, but the average number of goats would be in the area of 80 per day.
-
The average number of rams that can be shorn (which is twice the flock rate of pay per 100) would be approximately 60 per day, which is approximately the same number of billy-goats and wethers that can be shorn in a day.
-
The claim was within the parameters of Principle 10 of the Wage Fixation Principles.
Mr. D. Double, a shearer for twenty years, was the main witness for the Australian Workers' Union in this matter.
He shears goats at two places, `Mount Morriston', where there are 700/800 shorn twice a year and at `Westmore', where there are about 200. The sheep at these two properties are also shorn by him.
The main points contained in his evidence are as follows:
-
It is harder to shear goats than sheep as the shearer has to cut against the grain, thus making the fibre harder to get off.
-
Goats move much quicker than sheep and there is a need to restrain a goat more than a sheep.
-
The billy-goats have very large horns.
-
A goat throws its head about quite a bit and has a rank smell.
-
It is possible to shear 150/160 sheep per day and approximately 80 angora goats per day, however, some days more than 80 could be shorn if smaller goats were amongst the flock.
-
It is hard to estimate the number of billy-goats that one could shear in a day because there are only very small numbers at the moment, but it would be approximately half as many billy-goats per day compared with nanny-goats.
-
Goats are harder to catch than sheep.
-
The fences have to be raised in the sheds to stop the goat from jumping over the top.
-
Shearing of goats is harder on the combs than shearing of sheep, (they run hot), and the severity of the problem depends on whether the goats are running in clean or dirty areas.
-
The rate being paid at `Mount Morriston' for shearing a billy-goat is 2 for 1 and for wethers, the ordinary flock sheep rate.
-
The rate being paid at `Westmore' is 1 & ¼ for 1 because they are stud; this includes wethers and, 2 for 1 for billy-goats.
Mr. Daryl S. Brown, an organiser for the Australian Workers' Union (Tasmania Branch) (A.W.U.) also gave evidence to the Commission.
He said: -
-
In the last 4 or 5 years there has been a large increase in the goat population.
-
There were as 15 to 20 A.W.U. members shearing goats of which 85/90% would be shearing in and around shearing sheds.
-
Whilst he (Mr. Brown) was not aware of every member of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Employers' Association (T.F. & G.E.A.), there was a number of farmers who were not members of the T.F. & G.E.A. and hence, were not covered by the Pastoral Industry Award.
Mr. P.X. Houlihan, representing the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Employers' Association, opened his rebuttal of the union's application by directing my attention to Section 21 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1984 and, in particular, Section 21(2)(c)(i) and (2)(c)(ii) which states inter alia: -
"(c) at any stage of those proceedings, dismiss a matter or a part of a matter, or refrain from further hearing, or determining, the matter or part if the Commission is satisfied -
(i) that the matter or part is trivial;
(ii) that further proceedings are not necessary or desirable in the public interest."
He submitted that on both those grounds I should dismiss the matter.
He said that there was approximately 16,000 head of goats in Tasmania and the organisation he represented believed that approximately 25% of that number were in commercial flocks which would be affected by this application.
He stated that the Commission was being asked to make an award which would regulate one man's work for one month per year and such an application he believed to be trivial and should be dismissed by the Commission on that basis alone.
On the public interest argument Mr. Houlihan stated that if the Commission was to grant a rate for shearing goats anything like that which was claimed by the Union, it would lead to a situation whereby it would not necessarily destroy the goat industry in Tasmania, but would certainly diminish the potential that is there to be realized.
He said this industry was the only livestock industry in this country which had the potential for growth and it was the only industry which could offer the potential for more employment of shearers.
Mr. Houlihan submitted that within a decade the shearing of goats could account for 25/30% of all shearing that is done in Australia.
Whilst the T.F. & G.E.A. was not opposed in toto to the making of an award to regulate this work, nevertheless, it led evidence to try to establish that this was not the time to do so as it was only an infant industry.
Mr. Houlihan said the industry was immature in that, not only did they not know how many goats there were, but no one was really sure of the numbers of breeders or commercial operations and that no properly established marketing or promotions system was in place.
He said that they were very concerned that no impediment was put in the industry's path which would kill it before it got under way.
He further submitted that there was considerable concern in the goat industry nationally, as this was the first time anywhere in Australia that an application like this had come this far.
Further submissions made by Mr. Houlihan are summarised as follows: -
-
At best only 50% of the goats that are shorn in Tasmania are shorn in or around a shearing shed.
-
The application only applies to shearers, not shed hands and pressers who are all part of a team involved in working in a shearing shed.
-
The application was too narrow for the Commission to grant.
-
If one part of the team was to have its rate increased and the other people in the team received no increase, then it would be a simple recipe for disputation.
-
The Australian Workers' Union's application has enormous ramifications for the entire wool industry in that it seeks to have wethers treated in the same manner as billy-goats.
-
A goat could display billy-goat characteristics and that could be coped with in exactly the same way as in the wool industry with that sort of animal i.e., providing for a `ram stag' or `billy-goat stag' classification.
-
In the case of wethers and billy-goats that are shorn twice a year, the Commission is being asked effectively to put a rate four times the shearing cost on the base unit of production for this industry annually.
-
The application ignores the history of the pastorally industry `formula'.
-
The claim is in excess of any known rate for the type of work under consideration and in terms of the Wage Fixation Principles, if granted, would establish a rate beyond that which already exists.
-
The Wage Fixation Principles prevent the Commission from prescribing a rate exceeding that which already is the most appropriate rate and which is basically being paid, that being, at this moment, an amount of money equivalent to the flock sheep rate contained in the Pastoral Industry Award.
-
The argument presented by the Union relation to Section 50 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1984 does not apply in that the people subject to this application are currently, on Mr. Hanlon's argument, `award free'.
-
There would be some people in the industry who would not be covered by the provisions of the Pastoral Industry Award.
-
A Full Bench of the Federal Commission in Print No. G.1298, handed down in relation to the Pastoral Industry Award, recognised the need for an overhaul in the `shearers' formula'.
Mr. Houlihan spent some time on the `shearers' formula' and he presented a number of exhibits on this point. He also examined the question of `expedition shearing'.
Mr. Houlihan introduced five witnesses and they were: -
Mr. Ian Hilton Howell, Shearing Contractor.
Mr. Alan Leslie Jones, Sheep and Goat Adviser for the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. John Bertrand Davies, Chairman of Region 71 of the Australian Cashmere Growers Association.
Mr. Howard Gavin Moxham, Executive Officer, Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales.
Mr. John Donald Lindsay Nicolson, Farmer and Goat Breeder.
Of all Mr. Houlihan's witnesses, Mr. Howell was the only person involved in the shearing of goats for a living and he indicated to the Commission that he would be shearing approximately 9,000 goats in the coming year, of which about half were shorn in shearing sheds.
He assisted the Commission in understanding some of the finer points of shearing goats and he maintained that goats could not be treated like sheep and there were problems such as heating of combs, the behaviour of the animal and the awareness that a shearer must have to make sure the "horns do not go through my ribs".
He also highlighted the fact that a shearer was required to hold the animal differently, as removing the fibre from the belly of a goat was slightly different to the method used on sheep and cuts have to be made in different areas.
He said that shearing the first back leg and the last back leg was different because of the different muscles of the goat.
As a shearing contractor, Mr. Howell informed the Commission of the rates he was charging farmers to shear their goats and this was further expanded upon by Mr. Houlihan later on in his submission, when he said that Mr. Howell charged $1.25 for work above twenty head and $1.35 for work below twenty head, and double the rate when shearing billy-goats.
The evidence presented by Mr. Jones from the Agricultural Department mainly centred around the numbers of commercial breeders and the size of the flocks within the State and gave the Commission a general overview of the industry.
However, when being questioned about the making of an award for employees shearing goats he had this to say: -
MR. JONES
"Certainly a few people I have spoken to have been concerned. It depends on the price obviously. Some that I have spoken to certainly could quite well cope with an award that was similar to sheep. That does not seem to worry them.
The cashmere people are not worried, even though at the moment their returns are lower, because they know that generally they can shear them themselves." (Transcript page 98).
I asked Mr. Jones, during the course of his evidence, whether the people to whom he had spoken would not be opposed to the making an award if it was in the terms of the sheep rate.
He said:
"MR. JONES
Yes, I have had people tell me that. I think they probably thought it was neater to have a standard so they knew where they stood.
COMMISSIONER WATLING
Have you any view on whether they should be `award free'?
MR. JONES
I like things tied up neatly and it would seem to me that providing it was mutually agreed to and was fair, it would be good. (Transcript page 102).
Mr. Jones then went on to say, in the absence of mutual agreement he was all for the Commission making a decision.
Mr. John Davies, the next witness for the T.F. & G.E.A. whilst retaining goats on his property, does not employ shearers to remove their fibre.
I found it difficult to ascertain whether Mr. Davies was giving evidence as a producer or Chairman of Region 71 of the Australian Cashmere Growers Association.
He did, however, give the Commission a general view of the potential of the industry and emphasised the point that he could see no reason why the industry should be regulated to any extent at this stage.
Later on in his evidence he said that he had no objection to paying a man a fair and reasonable amount of pay for the amount of work that he does.
He went on to say that he had no objection to paying shearers to harvest fibre on an incentive basis.
He shed little light on whether it was against the public interest to make an award for employees shearing goats.
Mr. Howard Moxham, an Executive Officer of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales, gave an interesting overview of what he described as a "fledgling industry that was prone to cot death" and a reasonable proportion of his evidence was related to the goat industry in New South Wales.
He further gave evidence to suggest that the industry should not suffer any undue regulation however, he recognised it was already partially regulated by the Pastoral Industry Award, except for an incentive scheme for the shearing of goats. He said it was against the interests of the industry to set up an award at this stage of its development and that any infrastructure or fixed costs may well cause people to move away from goat production.
He also said there was a need to get the marketing side fixed up otherwise buyers will move away and growers will become despondent with the prices.
He said that he would not like to see a provision for the shearing of goats included in the award at this stage, and not for some years to come. He said this would enable the industry to get on a sound footing and become of value to everybody, especially from the export and employment point of view.
He recognised the industry had tremendous potential, however, whilst being partially regulated at the moment, nevertheless, he was of the opinion that an incentive scheme for the shearing of goats could be a problem which could help stagnate the industry.
Mr. J.D.L. Nicolson informed the Commission that he did not employ any shearers at this moment for the purpose of removing fibre from his goats as he preferred to carry out the task himself. He made the statement that he did not believe that the current application would help the industry develop in Tasmania. However, in answer to a question from myself on whether or not an award provision for shearing would retard the growth of the industry, he responded by saying: -
"If there is an award set, it will depend on what it is made up of, I believe."
During Mr. Hanlon's rebuttal of the employers' submissions he sought, with the support of the employers, to vary slightly his claim to read as follows; -
"(4) Persons shearing goats in or about shearing sheds shall be paid for:
: Billy-goats - twice the flock sheep rate;
: Buck Stag - Wethers with buck characteristics, i.e., have been castrated after they have attained 18 months - twice the flock sheep rate;
: Nannies - one and a half time the flock sheep rate.
The flock sheep rate will be the rates prescribed in accordance with paragraph 3 above."
This was done to pick up an earlier submission made by Mr. Houlihan about the provision in the Federal award for a `ram stag'.
This definition of a `buck stag' was the only part of the application agreed to by the employers.
DECISION
The task I must first of all undertake is to decide whether or not a piece-work rate should be inserted in this award for the shearing of goats.
The main thrust of Mr. Houlihan's submission was that I should reject the application because:
(a) it was trivial; and
(b) it was not necessary or desirable in the public interest to make an award.
On Mr. Houlihan's own admission, there was considerable concern in the goat industry nationally as this was the first tribunal in Australia to hear and be asked to determine an application for piece-work rates for shearers removing fibre from goats.
I find it hard to reconcile that statement with the proposal put to me by the T.F. & G.E.A. that I should reject the application because it was trivial.
It was also argued that the goat industry was relatively small in this state, and the number of persons affected by any successful prosecution of the application would be minimal and, therefore, it should be dismissed. This factor alone does not, in my view, make the matter trivial.
After examining all the evidence I am not satisfied that an adequate case has been made out to enable me to decide the application is trivial.
The next question that I have been asked to consider is whether it is necessary or desirable in the public interest to make an award.
Mr. Hanlon argued that his application was in the public interest as it provided an opportunity, or choice, to the employer, either to pay employees shearing goats by the week (which is available to them via the award at the moment) or, by incentive payment which is the practice in the industry for shearing sheep.
The submission presented by Mr. Houlihan and the evidence educed from the witnesses, gave the Commission a general overview of the industry with particular emphasis on New South Wales and Tasmania.
I recognise this is a fledgling industry and must be allowed to expand and grow, but I had great difficulty in establishing, from the evidence, precisely how the industry would be affected by placing a new classification in the award for shearing goats.
From the evidence presented I found it hard to distinguish any `public interest' argument from the general comments and assertions put forward by the T.F. & G.E.A. and its witnesses.
I gleaned from some of the witnesses that they were not so much opposed to the making of an award, but were very concerned about the rate that may be granted if the application was successful.
Whilst recognising the phrase `public interest' it is clearly capable of wide interpretation because of its vagueness, nevertheless, parties placing submissions on the `public interest' should, I believe, be a little more precise and substantiate the items of evidence they present.
Having evaluated all the relevant submissions to gauge whether this application should be rejected in the `public interest', I have come to the conclusion that the application to include a piece-work rate in the award should not fail on this ground and, therefore, I reject the T.F. & G.E.A.'s argument.
There is no doubt in my mind that persons are shearing goats on piece-work rates in this industry and I am of the view it is appropriate to regulate this practice via an award provision and I decide accordingly.
Having decided in favour of an award provision I now turn to the question of the appropriate rate.
Mr. Hanlon's claim was as follows: -
"(4) Persons shearing goats in or about shearing sheds shall be paid for:
: Billy-goats - twice the flock sheep rate;
(213.78 per 100)
: Buck Stag - Wethers with buck characteristics, i.e., have been castrated after they have attained 18 months - twice the flock sheep rate;
($213.78 per 100)
: Nannies - one and a half time the flock sheep rate.
$160.34 per 100)
The flock sheep rate will be the rates prescribed in accordance with paragraph 3 above."
Mr. Houlihan informed the Commission that the `flock sheep rate' contained in the Federal award was determined by what was usually referred to as the `shearers' formula' (see Attachment `A').
He then suggested to the Commission that it was not appropriate to strike a rate for shearing goats based on the `shearers' formula', and he took the opportunity to tender a number of exhibits to highlight what he considered to be a more appropriate formula.
Whilst I found this exercise interesting, I am not prepared to tamper with a formula that has been modified on very few occasions since its adoption in 1927.
If the formula is to be changed then it should be done so after close examination and after all interested parties have had the opportunity to present submissions on the matter.
The evidence indicates that the rates currently being paid are as follows:
1. At `Mount Morrriston - for shearing a billy-goat the rate is 2 for 1, and for wethers, the ordinary flock sheep rate.
2. At `Westmore" - for shearing a billy-goat the rate is 2 for 1, and for wethers, 1 and ¼ for 1.
3. A contractor was charging and being paid $1.25 for work above twenty head and $1.35 for work below twenty head, and double the rate when shearing billy-goats or wethers that were `buck' oriented.
As can be seen from above, the rate claimed for the shearing of nanny-goats is significantly higher than that which is being currently paid in the industry.
I am not convinced, after hearing the submissions and having witnessed shearers removing the fibre from goats, that the rate warrants an increase of up to 50% on top of what is already being paid in the industry for this category of goat.
Whilst I recognise it may be slightly harder to shear angora nanny-goats, nevertheless, I am not convinced that the same degree of difficulty applies to the shearing of kashmir nanny-goats.
The evidence seems to suggest that very few, if any, employers in this industry are employing persons to remove the fibre from their kashmir goats, however, if I were to write a provision into the award giving one rate for nanny-goats, this would apply equally to kashmir as well as angora goats and this I am not prepared to do.
This industry is relatively new and from all accounts it has the potential to grow in the future, therefore, I am reluctant to grant a rate of $160.34 per 100 for the shearing of nanny-goats as it may have a deleterious effect on the industry during these early and formative years.
In future shearers may have to come to grips with the fact that they have to adopt new techniques to cater for the undoubted differences that exist between sheep and goats, especially when it comes to the removal of their fleece or fibre, respectively. There is also an obligation on the part of the employers in the industry to ensure that adequate training in any new techniques is made available to shearers.
Some of the difficulties now being experienced by shearers may be diminished in the future with the introduction of new methods such as the `go-down-technique', and to place a rate of 1 and ½ times the flock sheep rate in the award at this time may be premature.
For these reasons I am going to award the following for shearing nanny-goats: -
"Nanny-goats -
Kashmir - the equivalent to the flock sheep rate which is currently $106.89 per 100;
Angoras - 1 and 1/8 times the flock sheep rate which is $120.25 per 100."
The claim for twice the flock sheep rate for billy-goats and buck stags receives my support.
The evidence suggests this rate is consistent with that which is being paid at the moment in the industry and therefore, I see no reason for altering the prescription.
In arriving at these conclusions I have also taken into consideration the Wage Fixation Principles and, in particular, Principle 10 which states inter alia: -
"10. FIRST AWARD AND EXTENSIONS OF EXISTING AWARDS
(a) In the making of a first award, the long established principles shall apply i.e. prima facie the main consideration is the existing rates and conditions (General Clerks Northern Territory Award).
(b) In the extension of an existing award to new work or to award-free work the rates applicable to such work will be assessed by reference to the value of work already covered by the award.
(c) In awards regulating the employment of workers previously covered by a State award or determination, existing rates and conditions prima facie will be the proper award rates and conditions."
I am satisfied that an order granting the abovementioned rates is within the terms of Principle 10.
Savings Provision
It is not my intention that any employee who is currently in receipt of rates of pay in excess of those described in this decision, be disadvantaged or suffer a diminution of remuneration through the making of this award.
OPERATIVE DATE
As there was no submission put to me on the operative date, it shall be from the first full pay period to commence on or after 27 June, 1986. Order
R.J. WATLING
COMMISSIONER
ATTACHMENT `A'
SHEARERS' FORMULA
To operate on and from the first full pay period to commence on or after 27 June, 1986.
(All variable items to be calculated to the nearest cent)
| Current Total Wage Increase New Total Wage Plus 20% Piece-work Allowance |
260.70 |
|
324.72 | |
| 20 weeks wages at $324.72 per week} 20 weeks fares at $8.17 per week 3 weeks travelling at $74.34 per week 17 weeks mess at $49.73 per week 17 weeks camping allowance at $8.02 per week 1 week lost earning time at home at $270.60 per week Pro rata allowance in lieu of 4 weeks annual leave + 17½ % (a) Pro rata allowance in lieu of 1.8 weeks sick leave (b) |
6,494.40 |
| Less 17 weeks contribution towards the cost of meals at $35.18 per week (c) |
598.06 |
|
|
8,410.18 |
| Per 100 |
|
$8,410.18 x 100 = $103.07 per 100 |
|
Plus allowance for cost of combs and |
| Plus disability allowance for handling an occasional daggy or flyblown sheep at 57 cents per 100 = .57 per 100 |
|
$106.89 per 100 |
| (a) 4 weeks @ $270.60 17 weeks @ $324.72 |
| + 17.5% 47.36 + 17.5% 56.83 |
| $317.96 $381.55 |
|
x4 x17 |
|
= $1,271.84 + $6,486.35 = $7,758.19 x 1 |
| 12 |
|
= $646.52
|
| (b) 4 weeks @ $270.60 = $1,082.40 17 weeks @ $324.72 = $5,520.24 |
|
$6,602.64 x 1.8/52 = $228.55
|
| (c) 13% of Total Wage = 13% of $270.60 = $35.18 |